Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange is the set of legal proceedings relating to claims that Julian Assange committed sexual offences in Sweden.

When an arrest warrant was issued in November 2010, Assange had been living in England for 1-2 months. An extradition hearing took place in an English court in February 2011 to consider an application by Swedish authorities for the extradition of Assange to Sweden. The outcome of the hearing was announced on 24 February 2011, when the extradition warrant was upheld. Assange appealed to the High Court, and on 2 November 2011, the court upheld the extradition decision and rejected all four grounds for the appeal as presented by Assange's legal representatives. £19,000 costs was also awarded against Assange. On 5 December 2011, Assange was refused permission by the High Court to appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court certified that his case raised a point of law of general public importance. The Supreme Court subsequently granted permission to appeal.[1] Assange denies the allegations, and remains on conditional bail in the United Kingdom.[2][3][4]

On 20 August 2010, two women came to Swedish police inquiring whether it was possible to require that Julian Assange be submitted to an HIV-test. Within the filed report, the police officers found signs of sexual misconduct. In response, the police opened an investigation.[5] The women involved were a 26-year-old inEnköping and a 31-year-old in Stockholm.[6]

In answer to questions surrounding the incidents, the following day, Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné declared, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." However, Karin Rosander, from the Swedish Prosecution Authority, said Assange remained suspected of molestation. Police gave no further comment at that time, but continued to investigate.[7]

After learning of the investigation, Assange said, "The charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."[8]

On 30 August, he was questioned by the Stockholm police.[2][9] He denied the allegations, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women.[8][10][11]

Claes Borgström, the attorney who represents the two women, appealed against the decision to drop part of the investigation.[6][12] On 1 September 2010, the Swedish Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations. [13]

On 18 August 2010, Assange applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden.[14][15] He left Sweden on 27 September 2010.[16] On 18 October 2010, his request was denied.[15][14][17]

On 18 November 2010, prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for the arrest of Assange in order for him to be interviewed by the prosecutor.[18] As he was now living in England, the court ordered him detained (häktad) in absentia.[19][20] On appeal, the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the warrant on suspicion of rape, olaga tvång(duress/unlawful coercion), and two cases of sexuellt ofredande,[21][22][23][24] which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation",[25] "sexual assault",[26] "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment".[27][28][17][22][23] The Supreme Court of Sweden decided not to consider a further appeal as no principle was at stake.[citation needed][29] On 6 December 2010, Scotland Yard notified Assange that a valid European arrest warrant had been received.[30]

Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence;[31] the prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning.

On release on bail, Assange said "I hope to continue my work and continue to protest my innocence in this matter,"[35] and told the BBC, "This has been a very successful smear campaign and a very wrong one."[36] He claimed that the extradition proceedings to Sweden were "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US." Swedish prosecutors have denied the case has anything to do with WikiLeaks.[34]

The extradition hearing took place on 7–8 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in London.[37][38] Assange's lawyers at the extradition hearing were Geoffrey RobertsonQC and Mark Stephens (solicitor), human rights specialists, and the prosecution was represented by a team led by Clare Montgomery QC.[39] Arguments were presented as to whether the Swedish prosecutor had the authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant, the extradition was requested for prosecution or interrogation, the alleged crimes qualified as extradition crimes, there was an abuse of process, his human rights would be respected, and he would receive a fair trial if extradited to Sweden.

The outcome of the hearing was announced on 24 February 2011, when the extradition warrant was upheld.[29][40][41] Senior District Judge Howard Riddle found against Assange on each of the main arguments against his extradition.[42] The judge said "as a matter of fact, and looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person (Mr Assange) passes the threshold of being an accused person and is wanted for prosecution."[42] Judge Riddle concluded: "I am satisfied that the specified offences are extradition offences."[42]

Assange commented after the decision to extradite him, saying "It comes as no surprise but is nevertheless wrong. It comes as the result of a European arrest warrant system run amok."[43]

On 2 March 2011, Assange's lawyers lodged an appeal with the High Court challenging the decision to extradite him to Sweden.[44] Assange remains on conditional bail.[44][45] The appeal hearing took place on 12 and 13 July 2011 at the High Court in London. The judges' decision was reserved, and a written judgment was delivered on 2 November 2011, dismissing the appeal.[46][47][48][49]

The High Court refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, but this was granted by the Supreme Court itself, after the High Court certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved in its decision. The point of law certified was whether a prosecutor is a judicial authority. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on 1 and 2 February 2012.[50]